« An Incomplete Story | Main | Ten Things I've Done That You've Done As Well »
February 23, 2005
Existentialist Question #42
I know some of you out in Peoria are thinking that the existentialist question involved in Exhibit #89FatYellowBear012 is one involving the comedian's lonely soul and the choice said comedian made to devote one's entire life to another human's involuntary reaction. But then, you've only had three years at a community college. You took a class called Betty Friedan and Vagina Art. We'll forgive you in a couple years.
Fozzie, Exhibit #89FatYellowBear012, is a puppet. Subcategory: Muppet. He does not have independent cognitive functions. He does not have a digestive track. He may be able to clean up at the Blackjack table at the Sands, but only because a man's hand is up his who-ha. And he does not have a who-ha. See above lack of stomach, intestines and colon.
Your Vagina art will not help you here.
Clear your minds. Focus your manna. Drink a cup of herbal tea and sit the fuck down. The Puppet (Muppet) is holding another puppet in Exhibit #89FatYellowBear012. We are two steps removed from reality.
The "Fozzie" clearly can not be controlling "Hommage à Charlie McCarthy." To function at all besides as an ornate dust collector, "Fozzie" must have a human master. So must "Hommage à Charlie McCarthy". One master, two puppets. How did Sarte miss this?
Karl Marx did not. And neither did Harpo. Side note: "Fozzie" is clearly an hommage or fromage to many Marx Brothers. He has Chico's hat. Harpo's horn. Mostly he is Gummo, although I cannot embellish on the similarities without retaining legal counsel.
We are led to believe that "Fozzie" is controlling "Hommage à Charlie McCarthy." And yet we know that this is not really the case. Look at the construction of "Hommage à Charlie McCarthy." Crooked ears, papier-mâché head, no lips or mouth to speak of or with. The shoddy workmanship trips us into believing that a puppet (Muppet) made the puppet. A puppet cannot make a puppet. "Fozzie" does not have enough dexterity in his fingers. He actually doesn't have real fingers. He cannot plug in a hot glue gun. He cannot pay an electricity bill.
"Kermit" maybe, but "Fozzie"! Are we fools!?! Yes, because you took three years of community college and never once had sex in the library. But we don't need to go into your anatomical follies now, do we?
Suppose it is as we are lead to believe and the puppet controls the puppet. Is puppet #2 ("Hommage à Charlie McCarthy") controlled at all by a human? Is it more or less dependent on the puppeteer then "Fozzie"? Can any puppet determine it's own existence?
Open the car door, we're going on a ride.
Exhibit #89FatYellowBear012 can not answer Existentialist Question #42. It can only create more confusion. But think back to that one philosophy course you took. Tell me this isn't one for the Greeks. Tell me that Karl Marx and Jean-Paul Sarte don't have a few notes on the subject, never mind that cokehead Sigmund. It's all in the metaphor.
Homer says it best.
Lisa: "Dad, what's a muppet?"
Homer: "Well, it's not quite a mop and it's not quite a puppet, but maaannn! So to answer your question, I don't know."
And note that I refrained from making any reference at all to the current "maison blanc" residents. That's because I do not devote my entire life to another human's involuntary reaction. Go back to your flower poetry.
Posted by emily at February 23, 2005 2:55 PM
Comments
This was a interesting read, Going to go and browse a few more pages of this site.
Posted by: The Simpsons at September 8, 2010 8:54 AM
I like the valuable information you supply in your articles. I’ll bookmark your weblog and test once more right here regularly. I am quite sure I’ll be informed lots of new stuff right right here! Good luck for the following!
Posted by: Tam Walbrecht at November 17, 2011 10:21 AM